Apolito v. Frosdick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Apolito v. Frosdick

236 A.D.2d 895, 654 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1935

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 7, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D.2d 895 (Apolito v. Frosdick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Apolito v. Frosdick, 236 A.D.2d 895, 654 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1935 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: City Court properly granted defendant’s motion for dismissal at the conclusion of plaintiffs case, and County Court properly affirmed the judgment. Plaintiff tripped and fell while walking along a sidewalk in front of defendant’s residence. She alleged that she was caused to fall by a difference in the height of the sidewalk concrete at the point where the sidewalk crosses defendant’s driveway. Plaintiff failed to establish that defendant owned the sidewalk or that, as an abutting owner, defendant created the defect, was obligated by statute or ordinance to maintain the sidewalk, or that the defect was caused by some special use to which the sidewalk was put in connection with the driveway (see, Alessi v Zapolsky, 228 AD2d 531; Reid v Auto Tune Ctrs., 202 AD2d 1047). (Appeal from Order of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J.— Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: City Court properly granted defendant’s motion for dismissal at the conclusion of plaintiffs case, and County Court properly affirmed the judgment. Plaintiff tripped and fell while walking along a sidewalk in front of defendant’s residence. She alleged that she was caused to fall by a difference in the height of the sidewalk concrete at the point where the sidewalk crosses defendant’s driveway. Plaintiff failed to establish that defendant owned the sidewalk or that, as an abutting owner, defendant created the defect, was obligated by statute or ordinance to maintain the sidewalk, or that the defect was caused by some special use to which the sidewalk was put in connection with the driveway (see, Alessi v Zapolsky, 228 AD2d 531; Reid v Auto Tune Ctrs., 202 AD2d 1047). (Appeal from Order of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J.— Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 895, 654 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/apolito-v-frosdick-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack